KEY POINTS:
Sightings of an increasing number of thinner than normal grey whales is being highlighted as another example of the effects of climate change.
The skinny whales arrived in Mexico after swimming from the Arctic Ocean. But as the ice cap melts something dramatic has happened to the Arctic food supply.
Is Al Gore right about climate change? Here is a selection of Your Views:
Simon (Sumner)
Madeleine Ware suggests that previous alarming predictions by experts did not eventuate because "actions were taken to prevent them". Madeleine, just what sort of massive action do you think was taken across the world to prevent the global starvation scenarios forecast by the population explosion experts just a few decades ago? Are you as amazed as I am that no one took credit for saving the whole world as we know it? Even more amazing is that this was achieved at no cost, and that it was not even reported. Yeah right, even Tui would balk at that. The alternative, simpler, and much more compelling conclusion is simply that the alarmists were in that case were wrong. And calling a conclusion you don't happen to like rubbish isn't convincing. This example of shoddy argument raises a wider issue. Why is it that Global Warming alarmists feel free to be so intellectually dishonest? Here's an example. Talk about the 2000 deaths that are likely to occur in the UK if temperatures rise a certain amount. But do not mention the 20,000 fewer cold-related deaths likely under exactly the same scenario. Or again, take one single point on the planet and scientifically show how it has grown warmer over the last n thousand years (ooh, scary), but do not take any of the many other single points on the planet where the exact same analysis suggests either global cooling, or no change at all. I suspect GW alarmists think the ends are so important that a few dodgy arguments and selective editing of facts are excusable. But they are not. Ironically, these alarmists are indignant when anyone dares to question the validity of their arguments.
A final point, Madeleine. Your idea that in connection with global warming only facts matter, and that opinions are irrelevant is naive. For a start, this is an opinion page. But more importantly, this topic is complex. Facts have to be considered, and various conjectures, predictions, conclusions have to be drawn. These latter are opinions and they are necessary. What is needed is less bombast and special pleading, and more reasonable debate and intellectual honesty. That way, we could spend less time dealing with pathetic arguments that we both know are wrong (e.g. the 2,000 and 20,000 example above, what a waste of time), and get on to more productive dialogue.
Andrew
Neil highlights that thousands of scientists have collected data in support of climate change. Not quite. Thousands of scientists have collected data, yes; the concern is in the way the data has been interpreted that's where there may be a problem. Indeed, from what I understand, there are many data-collecting climate scientists who have been disgusted (albeit privately) with they way that their work has been interpreted. Usually they don't say anything that is, if they know that their job depends on it. Here is the real question: are these scientists paid to find the truth, or paid to reach a 'desired' conclusion? Take a close look at where they get their funding, and check for possible bias.
Matt Jeffs
It still staggers me how many ignorant people there are out there who seem to somehow, in their warped minds, relate the well founded Climate Change campaign as some evil 'looney left' conspiracy.
The facts are undeniable. Major, and at times, catastrophic weather events have taken place all over the planet in recent years and these are accelerating in their frequency. Yet again it's the poor and deprived who suffer if it's the residents of the Far North of New Zealand or the people of New Orleans. But hey lets just keep denying its happening as long as it doesn't affect 'Mr & Mrs Remuera'. Heaven forbid if they can't drop the kiddies at school in the 4X4 or jet off on their exotic Pacific Island holidays twice a year.
Madeleine Ware
What a lot of half-truth and rubbish has been put forward by commenters! Such as: Lisa's "The greenhouse effect is mainly man-made"; Nobuaki's comment which completely ignores the effects of CO2 on ocean acidity on algae in favour of the possible effects of warming alone; Martina's proposal which, while seemingly sensible, is a known "justification" for believing in God and heaven and hell; Simon's apparent justification to ignore Gore which ignores the possibility that the reason predictions by past experts did not come to fruition may be precisely because actions were taken to prevent them (see: Y2K)! Whether higher atmospheric CO2 and the concurrent warming is man-made or not, it seems more harmful than beneficial, so sensible to try to do something to limit it, and limiting greenhouse gas production and encouraging the development of carbon sinks seems to be the way to go, however futile (see: beach house owners vs coastal erosion). Human actions can and did (and will hopefully continue to) affect the atmosphere and, as a consequence, us (see: ozone hole). I second the call for commenters to submit credentials or else the Herald should refrain from opening up a forum on a topic like this, where facts are what matter and opinions are irrelevant.
I also suggest that everyone, regardless of which side they're on, go and read this summary in the New Scientist, which is surely more valuable and informative than what taxi driver X or hairdresser Y believes.
Neil (Auckland)
The UN report that came out recently on climate change being caused by humans is not written by Al Gore. It is based on data from hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists from around the world. But I guess thousands of scientists must be wrong, just like the scientific minds of the past era were ridiculed for suggesting that the earth was not flat and the universe did not revolved round earth. After all, the media and politicians must be right, aren't they always? Regardless of which side one is on, is it worth the gamble? Because if it's true, the human race is screwed, if not, hey, at least we would have stopped polluting the environment for future generations to cleanup. What's there to lose?
Hayden Nash
Lisa Ahlqvist says that evidence out of the UK shows the sun has cooled. Excuse me? I didn't realise the sun had suddenly started on the path to become a red dwarf. If that was the case, then greenhouse gases shouldn't be affected at all as it's the heat from the sun that keeps it trapped. Isn't it supposed to get hotter and burn out all it's fuel before supernova'ing and becoming a red dwarf? All the scientific magazines have plenty of proof how a sun star runs out of gas.
Dave
I am not going to argue why it is that there was farming in the last 500 years in countries now covered in Ice. But! Is their any major contribution to global warming other than fossil fuels? If all the theory supporting it is correct, is it not 90 per cent of the problem? If so why is such a huge political machine and network of complex and inefficient legislation being created with carbon credits etc? Why is the one truly effective simple solution being blatantly ignored? This is not an elephant in the living room it is an elephant sitting on our heads! Because it can only for political crisis-based power grabbing that this football is being tossed around this way. Carbon trading markets, food miles, blah blah blah.
One solution is required. No big complex regulations, no carbon trading markets. No big industry that will waste energy and burn carbon running the market places, the carbon inspectors, the consultants the Lawyers, the whole gravy train etc. Solution is (drum roll)
wack a big surcharge on fossil fuel! How amazing an idea is that? The message will go to all the right places in perfect proportion to the evil done by the user/producer. If you want to relieve a developing nation just adjust the surcharge. And well, the surcharge could be spent on world hunger and reforestation programs or whatever slush funds the governments want to spend it on. Perhaps environmental technology research.
Mel
Some people seem to be kind of confused about Al Gore. He didn't invent the theory of human-influenced climate change and he didn't do the research. All he is doing is being a well-known messenger for the vast majority of the scientific community across the globe who support the idea that human activity is causing the atmosphere to warm. This was an irresponsible story - the whole premise of skinny whales suggesting climate change was just a speculation from one person. Skinny whales are not much evidence for climate change. But there is ample scientific evidence that the globe is warming and is doing so at a faster rate than we can tell ever happened before. First the critics denied global warming is happening. Then, faced with clear evidence that it is, they changed their tune to say it's not human-caused. Soon they will be saying it is human-caused, but won't be as bad as we think. Then they'll be saying it will be bad, but there's nothing we can do to stop it. By that stage, they will probably be right.
Nobuaki
An embarrassing excuse for science. Algae increases with global warming, not decreases as these clowns propose. (By the way, algae processes more CO2 and produces more oxygen than all the forests/vegetation in the world. In fact chop them all down and you still have 80 per cent of the world's ability to process CO2. Warm the oceans and you have more capacity than today to process CO2. A homeostatic earth more than we think!) More food for fish and whales results. This is more likely caused by overpopulation of whales and or over fishing.
Whales consume vastly more fish than humans. The entire world wide fish catch is a small percentage of what whales consume. The one-eyed conservation policy of protecting whales only creates massive ecological imbalance. The whales obviously need culling or these two anorexic ones should be treated as the oddities they probably are, rather than making a false science political manoeuvre out of them.
You protect one species and that the species that consumes vast quantities of other fish each year and yes they will breed until starvation is a threat. Just like in Africa with people, in the ocean too over population relative to resources will result in starvation. How this is linked to Global warming is quite comical and desperate of Gore.
You got to look at the outstanding events in Gore's life to get the context on his crusade. He is a man bitter with defeat. He is as stupidly left as Bush is stupidly right. He has made this a political football in a game that Bush is hopeless at playing. But the silly science spewing out of his grudge match is profuse on both sides. (To those who are now going to quote the study by Kristin Kaschner you gotta be a little naive to believe that the cellular study model he used is going to produce reliable data. All fish stocks and certainly whales travel widely and the non-crossing over of demanded fish stock could be a result of diet as much as a predictor of it. It also ignores intermediate relationships between zones completely. Deeply-flawed ideological goal-based research.)
Tom
No. CO2 does not create a warming trend, the sun and clouds do. This whole media frenzy over global warming is a political football for the liberal left to further their agenda. The question we all should be asking is: What is their (the liberal left's) motivation to propagate a false theory? The answer to that question is the key to understanding why they would do such a thing. And the answer is clean energy. The only way to get to a hydrogen economy is to vilify the present oil economy.
L Gates
Sorry to all those that would claim the sun is to blame for global warming that has been disproved today by scientists from the Royal Society. It is pretty negligent of the Herald to allow any Joe Blogs voice their opinion in such forums without any qualifications. People read this stuff and believe it. They should stick to writing and quoting qualified and respected scientists views, from peer-reviewed studies that have been carried out without undue influence (i.e. funding) from people and companies that have a bias on the issue.
Fraser
What concerns me most about the global warming "debate" is that those who believe in man-made global warming seem to have declared themselves the winners and are now persecuting anyone who disagrees with them with a zealousness that gives away the weakness of their beliefs. There are many estimates and guesses involved in any climate model, any of which can have a huge impact on the outcome, and yet the most dire scenarios are often present as hard fact. I am all in favour of living more efficiently and having cleaner air to breathe, but I resent being asked to do this for reasons that are so flawed. Any change to the planet and its climate is presented as horrifying testimony to man's effects on it, while at the same time major natural changes such as the last ice age are conveniently ignored. The planet and climate have never been stable, and will not be within any of our lifetimes. I'm sure we do have an effect, but it is not anything like what we are made to feel guilty for.
John Poole
Yes climate change is happening but the human race has nothing to do with it, we should stop chasing rain bows, and get to building flood protection and a more safe roading system, less prone to slips.
Ken Shock
Al Gore's Global Warming is about the NWO, global government, defeat of democracy and more taxation. Name a problem government has solved? There is not enough scientific evidence to warrant all the above, plain and simple. Please study here:
http://brinnonprosperity.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=5
Paul Hansen
It really is simple. If we do act and find out global warming is a myth then at least we will have developed efficient attitudes and technologies, like a replacement for the internal combustion engine. If we don't act and global warming turns out to be true then we're quite stuffed.
Craig Jepson
No way has flooding in NZ got anything to do with the myth of man-made Global warming. Those with long Northern memories realise this happens in towns like Kaao often.
Phil
Why do all these mugs think Al Gore invented Global Warming? Sleazos like Gore are the worst thing that ever happened to climate change theory. Unfortunately as this board shows far too many dipsticks n drongos need to be told what's what by a 'celebrity'. This is a dangerous methodology because as we see here some of these fools equate the truthfulness of climate change theory with the truthfulness of a paid up member of the US imperial ruling elite. Al Gore and Co are using the reality of climate change to make the rich richer and the poor starve growing fuel for the rich instead of food for themselves. Enough of Al Gore and the skinny whales! There is much that has been destroyed and which won't be fixable if Kiwis listen the morons amongst us who think reality can only be found watching what foreigners do instead of us doing it our self.
Martina (Auckland)
What bugs me is this: If those that believe in "global warming" are wrong, what happens? Nothing. If those that don't believe in it turn out to be wrong, then the world is screwed because of their arrogance. So what's wrong with taking some precautions then?
Toby Crowther
"Carrying Capacity" That is the term used to describe the limit in which an environment can sustain a growing population. Every year there is another 90 million of us born on this small planet, all wanting the material comforts money can bring. Its simple logic that 6 billion people all consuming day in day out is unsustainable.
London Kiwi
There is a plethora of evidence out there showing that humans are causing significant damage to the worlds ecosystems, and that climate change is a reality and something must be done about it. Critics of climate change are always the most vocal and hell bent on dis-crediting the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and it doesn't make your opinions right. How much more evidence do you need! Lake Rotorua, extremes of weather worldwide, melting ice caps, significant increases in CO2, droughts, not to mention the mountain of scientific evidence.
Thus, I ask NZ Herald readers and critics alike to provide proof that humans are not impacting this planet and that climate change is not occurring as a result of humans' activities.
Lisa Ahlqvist
Sure, Al Gore is on the right track. People who claim that the sun and the universe is responsible for the greenhouse effect do not know what they are talking about, because astronomers have no idea or proof about this whatsoever. The greenhouse effect is mainly man-made. This has recently been established by scientists in the UK. It was even proved scientifically that the sun has cooled down in the past decade or more. People who still insist the opposite are fooling themselves and the masses. It's about time we take urgent action to stop killing ourselves and stop listening to fools.
Mr G
Re: Floods here, heatwave in the US? Is this climate change?
Hmmmm let me think. I've got it! It's winter in NZ and summer in the US. This is certainly a pattern, let's get Bart and Homer to investigate! D'oh!
Pranil
What is astounding is the number of people who put their own theories forward without any scientific evidence and claim the Al Gore doesn't have any. If these ignorant people actually bored to look it up, his book and documentary are full of scientific evidence but no, that would be too inconvenient.
Helmut Letz
Climate change probably yes, but not how Al Gore speculates and tries people to manipulate for financial interests.
Simon
Al Gore is on the same level as all the experts who not so long ago were predicting that right now we would be suffering global famine and starvation due to a population explosion. They were wrong and so is he. This article, www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf shows why you can confidently ignore the global warming scenarios that came out of the IPCC recently.
Richard
It's very impressive to see all these armchair scientists that claim that climate change is purely a natural phenomena and couldn't possibly be human induced. Or it's some kind of greeny/lefty conspiracy to undermine the economy and reduce our standard of living. I wonder if any of them have actually bothered to inform themselves on the matter. For example there is evidence that suggests the move from hunter gathering societies to agricultural systems altered the Earth's climate. About 8000 years ago Earth should have moved in into an iceage due to an oscillation in Earth's orbit but evidence suggests that the increase of methane from early agriculture reduced the cooling and helped to create a relatively stable 8000 year period that in fact favoured agricultural development. Furthermore, there is also the fact that Earth and Venus have approximately the same amount of carbon, the difference being that on Venus it is in the atmosphere, whereas on Earth a vast amount of carbon has been sequestered by biological and geological processes. However Venus is approximately 800 degrees hotter than Earth and that temperature variant can not be put solely down to proximity to the sun. Carbon and methane obviously play a part in climate. Earth was once similar to Venus in climate but over about 600 million years biological life has sequestered that carbon and in turn altered the climate to favour the development of more complex life forms. However, over the last 100 years or so, we have taken close to 1 billion barrels of oil from the ground, billions of tonnes of coal and vast amounts of natural gas and have burnt all those hydrocarbons to obtain energy. In turn we have released billions of tonnes of CO2 back into the atmosphere (Currently 70 million tonnes per day). To say that it would not have an effect is like saying a cup of coffee will remain black after you add the milk. It's not just Al Gore, the evidence stacks up. The scientific community is convinced. Even John Howard has admitted there's a problem! Pull your heads in sceptics.
Next
